I want to thank everyone who supported me in my run for Utah State Dog Catcher. My critics said it couldn't be done, that there's no such thing as a state dog catcher. You stuck with me anyway, and I'm grateful for that.

Unfortunately, the critics were right. There is no such thing as a state dog catcher. So I'm going to spend some time re-reading the Utah Constitution and figuring out how to make our dogcatcher dream a reality.

I remember my first interactions with Mia Love. It was months before she burst onto the national scene at the Republican National Convention and a couple of years before she became the first black Republican woman elected to Congress. This was before anyone even though she had a shot at securing the Republican nomination in Utah's 4th District.

I don't remember exactly what was said those first moments I talked with her, but I do remember the genuineness of Mia Love. I wasn't a VIP, potential campaign donor, or even a 4th district voter, yet she made me feel good. She offered real compliments and kindness. I appreciated that about her.

In July 2012 I was given a small role on Love's Congressional campaign. I felt a little bit like an outsider in the campaign, partly because I was part-time, working mostly from home and not spending much time at the campaign office, and partly because this was a big-time campaign with professional consultants and I came from the activist/grassroots crowd. This is not to say I didn't love working with everyone on that campaign, because I did. I sometimes just felt like I didn't fit in. However, Mia always made me feel like a million bucks. She took the time genuinely make me feel important and appreciated.

This didn't end when the 2012 campaign ended. Every time I've seen her since she has taken the time to find out how my family's doing and how I'm doing.

One more thing: Mia Love is nobody's puppet. Trust me. She's a strong, independent-thinking person with a solid set of principles and a great family to keep her grounded. Mia will be a force to be reckoned with in Congress and I'm proud to call her a friend.

There are only 17 women in the Utah legislature, 12 in the house and 5 in the senate. That means only 16.3% of legislators in Utah are women. Of the 17 female legislators, 8 are Democrats and only 5 are Republicans.

Why does Utah elect so few women? And why are Republican districts dominated by men? It's at least partly due to the fact that women aren't running for office.

Of the 253 candidates who filed for Utah House or Senate, only 58 were women. That's less than 23%.

Of the 58 female candidates, 17 were Republican. So less than 7% of all legislative candidates were Republican women.

5 of the 58 female candidates withdrew after filing, 8 were defeated at their party convention, and 1 was defeated in a primary. That leaves 44 women on the ballot for the general election with 138 men. That means 24% of general election candidates are female. Women fared slightly better than men in party conventions and primaries.

It's hard to draw any conclusions from this limited data, but I will hypothesize that in order for there to be more women in the legislature, more will need to run.

Utah State Capitol - S.B. 12 sponsor Senator Stuart Reid seeks to raise the legal age for using and purchasing tobacco products.

Senator Stuart Reid has introduced a bill (S.B. 12) to increase the age requirement to 21 years old for anyone purchasing, possessing, or even “being present at certain establishments where tobacco, e-cigarettes, or paraphernalia are sold or used”.

Some questions I’ll address in this article include: Is the bill necessary? Will it have the desired effect? Is it fair?

Is S.B. 12 necessary?

Smoking rates have decreased significantly over the past 50 years and they continue to drop year after year. According to the CDC, Adults in the 18-24 age group smoke at a lower rate (18.9%) than adults age 25-64 (~22%), which is a good indicator that we will continue seeing drops in tobacco use as older generations pass on. Utah is in even better shape than the rest of the country, with an overall smoking rate of just 9.1%, a stat that has seen big drops in the past 10 years. As reported in the Deseret News, the Utah teen smoking rate has dropped 50% in recent years, from 11.9% in 1999 to 5.9% in 2011.

Things are happening in the free market that will help the continued decrease of tobacco use. CVS, the largest pharmacy chain in the United States with more than 7,400 locations, recently announced they will no longer sell cigarettes and other tobacco products in their stores. This will likely encourage other stores to do the same, and contribute to further drops in tobacco use.

Will S.B. 12 have the desired effect?

The purpose of the bill, presumably, is to discourage young people from ever starting to use tobacco. Currently, roughly 90% of adult smokers began smoking before they turned 18. This means that current laws prohibiting underage smoking have not stopped minors from picking up smoking in their teens. Would raising the legal age to 21 make any kind of significant difference? Probably not.

Is S.B. 12 fair?

Our society has widely determined that the legal age of adulthood is 18. When a citizen of Utah reaches this age they can vote in our elections, they can join the National Guard or active duty military, they can be sent to war and even die in the service of their country. Why, then, should the state prohibit them from an activity that would be legal for adults age 21 and older? If tobacco use is legal for some adults, it should be legal for all adults.

Persuasion instead of force

Modern health science has made it clear that tobacco use is bad for you. It is the number one preventable cause of death in America, with 480,000 killed each year. It is a very worthwhile endeavor to work to educate others on the danger of smoking, and by so doing prevent them from picking up the habit. When doing so, we should use persuasion and not force. Government is force, so when we use government to control behavior we are using force to change the way someone lives their life. Government has its proper role in society, but preventing tobacco usag, in my opinion, is not its proper role. As the Libertas Institute said in their summary of S.B. 12, “we should seek for ways to encourage young adults (and all individuals) to avoid addictive, self-destructive behavior. Non-profit organizations, parent groups, health insurance agencies, churches, and other voluntary institutions should coordinate their efforts and work through persuasion to combat tobacco and other addictions. However it happens, the state should play no part.”

Newly sworn-in Attorney General John Swallow has become the center of controversy after the Salt Lake Tribune published a story linking him to embattled businessman Jeremy Johnson and allegations of a big money bribe to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. The following is a very brief overview. Read the articles for details.

Richard Rawle used money he received from Johnson to pay John Swallow's company P-Solutions for "consulting work". (SL Trib)

Swallow transferred ownership of P-Solutions to his wife the same day he filed financial disclosures as a candidate. This transfer meant he didn't have to report the money received from Rawle. (SL Trib)

Now regulators are going after more attorney general donors. (SL Trib)

Swallow has a long history of having the appearance of unethical behavior. (Publius)

Despite this long list of evidence of unethical behavior, many are (rightly) saying, "Innocent until proven guilty!" I agree with that sentiment. The question is, how do we determine if he's guilty? The criminal investigations will surely come, and they'll take months or even years to complete the investigation, indictment, and conviction (if it goes that far). But what if he didn't break any laws? How do we determine if Swallow crossed an ethical boundary that merits a removal from office? That's where impeachment comes in.

The Utah Constitution (Article VI Section 16-18) allows for impeachment of certain state officers (including attorney general). It states that they may be impeached for "high crimes, misdemeanors, or malfeasance in office". Malfeasance is "wrongdoing or misconduct especially by a public official".

"The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment, but in order to impeach, two-thirds of all the members elected must vote therefor." (Article VI, Section 17)

Once the House impeaches someone the "Trial of Impeachment" can begin in the Senate.

"(1) All impeachments shall be tried by the Senate, and senators, when sitting for that purpose, shall take oath or make affirmation to do justice according to the law and the evidence. (2) Upon an impeachment by the House of Representatives, the Senate shall, if not already convened in an annual general session, convene for the purpose of trying the impeachment. (3) When the Governor is on trial, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court shall preside. (4) No person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the senators elected." (Article VI, Section 18)

This is the best way for the people of Utah to gather the evidence, have an investigation, and allow John Swallow to defend himself from the accusations of malfeasance. The impeachment trial can determine if Swallow crossed any ethical boundaries and if he did, he can be removed from office. If he did not, his name can be cleared and he can continue his duties as Attorney General.

If you want to contact your representative and ask him/her to give the people of Utah some closure on this controversy by having an impeachment trial, go here -> http://libertasutah.org/legislator/ - There you will be able to look up your representative's contact info. I recommend calling on the phone first and then send an email.

The Daily Herald today released an editorial making the case for the resignation of Utah's new attorney general John Swallow. This comes after the Salt Lake Tribune broke a story of allegations against Swallow from indicted Utah businessman Jeremy Johnson. If you haven't read the entire story from the Tribune, go read it now.

Here's an overview of the story:

John Swallow was a fundraiser for attorney general Mark Shurtleff. While fundraising he solicited donations from Jeremy Johnson.

When Johnson was under investigation by the FTC he sought help from Swallow (who by then was deputy attorney general) and Shurtleff.

Johnson alleges Swallow told him he had a friend connected to Harry Reid who could make his FTC problems go away.

Swallow asserts he simply put Johnson in contact with a lobbying firm that could help him with his problems.

Swallow sent an email to Johnson titled "Mtg. with Harry Reid's contact." which said "Richard is traveling to LV tomorrow and will be able to contact this person, who he has a very good relationship with. He needs a brief narrative of what is going on and what you want to happen. I don't know the cost, but it probably won't be cheap."

While Swallow was a candidate for attorney general he and his campaign consultant, Jason Powers, met with Johnson. This was while Johnson was out on bail.

Swallow and Johnson met again at a later date and the meeting was secretly recorded by Johnson. Swallow tells Johnson, "I'd like to have it legally through lobbyists." And the Tribune reports, "Swallow insists during the meeting he did nothing wrong 'criminally' but 'politically - politically, I go whoa.'"

Swallow is deeply involved in this scandal. At best, he's guilty of what many would consider unethical behavior, especially when that behavior is done by the deputy attorney general. At worst, he's committed some serious crimes and could see jail time.

So what do you think? Should Utah Attorney General John Swallow resign?

Should John Swallow resign his post as Attorney General of the State of Utah?

From guest author Christian Rodier, the following doesn't necessarily reflect the opinions of Michael Jolley:

Watching a cable news debate over the rising cost of healthcare, I could barely contain my indignation when I heard a pundit claiming the free market had failed us, implying it was now time to unleash the heavy hand of government into our healthcare system. Only government intervention could counter the spiraling costs, and on our own we had failed. It was for our own good. I asked myself, how could this person fail to see the downward price affect the free market has had? Had he not read his history? Has he not seen what has happened to the prices of cars, phones, and computers? In the past, these were only play things of the wealthiest among us but now commonplace household items. I now have the answer and the proof to verify. The solution won’t come from heaps of ineffective federal subsides carelessly tossed at our problems with cult-like vigor and a blind faith in a future that never has and never will be. The answer comes from the bottom-up and the middleman-out and not from the top-down. It comes from the free market. It is from the innovation of our entrepreneurs—something which has been lacking in the healthcare debates. It comes from surgery centers and other medical clinics which don’t accept insurance, be they government or private. It is because they only accept out-of-pocket payment from their patients or their employers. It comes from direct medical expense pay.In Oklahoma City, the local hospital Integris Medical Center primarily receives its revenue from health insurance reimbursements. It charges $7,542 to perform a routine carpel tunnel surgery. In the exact same city the Oklahoma Surgery Center, which doesn’t take health insurance only out of pocket or out of the employer’s pocket, charges for the same operation $2,750—1/3 the price. In addition, the Surgery center has full price-transparency. The cost for the procedure and all other procedures are posted on their website. The clinic works with the Kempton Group, a health care administration firm. The Kempton Group works with companies that pay their employees’ healthcare benefits directly out of their revenue instead of through insurance. The companies working with Kempton agree to wave all co-pays if employees agree to be treated at the Surgery Center. This is completely unprecedented given that most companies provide their employees’ healthcare through insurance. Integris as well as other hospitals and clinics, which primarily obtain revenue from private or government insurance, are notorious for outrageous mark ups. For example, the hospital charged over $300 for a steroid that only costs 0.75 cents and over $100 for a pain killer that only costs $1.50 whole sale. Moreover, they are not up front with their prices. The high price inflation puts medical care out of the reach of those who don’t have insurance. Since most Americans receive health insurance through their jobs, it leaves the lion’s share of the 12.3 million unemployed and their families out in the cold. The reason the traditional health insurance centered care is so expensive is that patients never see the bill; therefore, there is never any sticker shock. There is a whole host of perverse incentives at work. The health insurer wants to pay out at little as possible. They don’t make money when you’re cured. They make money when you pay your premium. The hospital wants to maximize their share of the insurance reimbursement, and the patient wants to get as much service as possible. It is like an employee at a Vegas restaurant with the company credit card. What is his incentive to just purchase a modest meal? What is the restaurant’s incentive to provide it for a reasonable price? The employee doesn’t lose out if the restaurant overcharges him. Meanwhile, the company isn’t the one eating the meal. Their concern is the bottom line. The co-pay spreads around the burden of payment between the employer, employee, insurance firms, and the government. Most employers receive tax credits for providing healthcare insurance to their employees. The shared cost leaves no one fully responsible for the overall price, diminishing the incentive for cost efficiency. Sadly the consumer loses out, and we’re left with massive inefficiencies. The middle-man in the health care system aggravates the inefficiencies in hospitals and traditional insurance taking clinics. Hospitals already have to deal with in-patient, out-patient, and emergency care. A portion of the emergency and routine care must be provided for free for clients unable to pay leaving the burden of cost on those who do. Instead of specializing and focusing in one particular area, the hospitals are spread thin. The multiple levels of service require expensive administrators everywhere who often earn 6 digit salaries. For example, at Integris the top 18 administrators earn $413,000 a year. The Oklahoma Surgery Center doesn’t have numerous types of services to provide. It only provides surgery and can focus and innovate on their particular facet of the health care industry. It doesn’t have to pay large salaries of administrators to run complex maze of interlocking health care services. Its low prices forced it to streamlined it administrative bureaucracy. It only has one level of service: surgery. The center is so efficient it is often able to perform almost twice the amount of surgeries as Integris Hospital. Not only does direct pay healthcare bring down the cost but provides an answer to the question conservatives have not adequately answered: What do we do about those who are denied healthcare insurance due to pre-existing conditions? Since the direct-pay cuts out the middle man, there is no longer any need to worry about being denied insurance for pre-existing conditions. The fact that the Oklahoma Surgery Center can save patients 2/3 or more compared to the traditional insurance based healthcare answers the question: How do we provide affordable healthcare to the middle class? For example, a "complex sinus surgery" at Integris hospital costs $33,505 while it is $5,885 at the Oklahoma Surgery Center. Because not every type of healthcare provided requires surgery, the direct pay model could easily be adapted to general physician clinics and specialists. This could even be extended to dentistry and eye care. The only question is what to do about Americans in poverty? Former Utah State Senator Dan Liljenquist had the right answer. He crafted legislation which provided Medicaid patients with a fixed amount to spend on healthcare. This brought cost as close to home as possible for Medicaid users and their doctors, cutting out the middleman. This would have provided better care for many Medicaid patients who were winding up in the emergency room because of the inability to find doctors accepting Medicare. It would have also saved Utah taxpayer money because paying for an emergency room visit is much more expensive that paying for a general physician. Unfortunately, the legislation depended on a federal waiver request which the Obama Administration denied. Congressional Republicans have long championed healthcare savings accounts which could easily be adapted to work the direct pay system. Healthcare savings accounts need to be more privatized. Employers could easily provide defined contribution healthcare savings accounts. Employees would provide a set percentage of their pay toward the accounts; employers would match, and if the employee wished, he could invest funds similar IRA or 401K. The employee would then choose how risky or safe the nature of his investments would be. Does this mean that insurance companies will no longer play a role in providing healthcare? No, insurance companies where created to insure against catastrophic events; therefore, they are often good for emergency care but not always good for day to day care given that catastrophic events are uncommon while everyone eventually gets sick. To bring down the cost of insurance, changes need to be made. Health insurance companies need to be able to compete across state lines. Because they can’t, in the majority of states only two major healthcare insurance companies provide the lion’s share of care and that leaves little competition thus driving up prices. Insurance companies also need the leeway to base charges off of their clients’ lifestyle. They should be able to charge the coach potato employee who overeats, smokes, drinks heavily, and exercises little more than the marathon runner employee who takes care of himself, so that the healthy employee doesn’t have to subsidize the healthcare of the unhealthy one. Safeway has done just that, and it has allowed them to keep healthcare insurance rates low and flat, according to the WSJ. The idea of direct medical pay is already on the table and the proof of its practicality is already out there. The question is now: how do we implement it? The biggest obstacle is that few people know of it. Everyone knows the Democrats’ plan in that Obamacare forces American citizens to buy insurance to pay fines and forces health insurance providers to cover those with pre-existing conditions. Most people know that the Right opposes Obamacare because of the cost, but few people understand what the Right wants to replace Obamacare with. Their ideas are not that clear. We must get the word out about the Oklahoma Surgery Center’s direct pay system. We must tell our friends and family members. This article is based on a ReasonTV video called Oklahoma Doctors vs Obamacare. Share it with friends on Social Media such as Facebook and Twitter. Healthcare Administration Companies must move away from insurance toward direct pay. The political and pundit class must start speaking out in order to win back control of the debate. The worst thing we can do is subsidize it in some form or another such as a tax credit lest we end up in the same place we started. Christian Rodier is a Political Activist with a BA in Political Science and is currently a student of Economics at SLCC.

Recently, advocates for economic liberty in Utah saw a small victory as a judge ruled in favor of African-style hairbraider Jestina Clayton. Jestina had the audacity to braid hair for money without first obtaining a license from the state government. The license would have required 2,000 hours of cosmetology training.

This is just one example of many where the State of Utah is requiring licensing for occupations they have no business regulating. The Insitute for Justice has a great video on this issue:

I'm currently doing research into Utah's occupational licensing. If you know of any examples of unnecessary or excessive licensing laws in Utah, please contact me or leave a comment below.